17.1rbatrs1 anal prattaingri in patliantrttt. 1. TRISH CHURCH REFORM.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Order of the Day having been read for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Irish Tithe Bill, Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and addressed the House. He began by requesting attention to a point which regarded the privileges of the Commons of England. Agreeing with Mr. Pym, one of their early authorities, he did not think that their privileges were mere matters of form, or of slight import, but of great weight and value. In this bill four alterations had been made by the Peers. First, the rent-charge had been changed from seven-tenths to three-fourths. Second, the dis- tribution of the incomes of the parochial clergy had been altered, and the amount to be distributed increased. Third, part of the clause which gave the surplus of revenue to the Consolidated Fund had been struck out. Fourth, the clause giving 50,000/, a year out of the Consolidated Fund, for the moral and religious instruction of the people of Ireland, had been omitted. As a consequence of these alterations, half the title—the words "for the promotion of the religious and moral instruction "—had been struck out ; as well as half the pre- amble, both in bulk and substance. These alterations were of grave importance ; and alterations affecting in a less degree the privileges of the House had in former times caused the rejection of mea- sures on their return from the house of Peers to the Commons. In the year 1772, a provision in a corn-bill passed by the Com- mons, granting a bounty on exportation, was erased by the Peers ; and though the alteration diminished the burdens of the people, the Speaker said he would perform his part on the occa- sion, and tossed the bill over the table on the floor, and Members on both sides kicked it out of the House. If he were to confine himself to mere matter. of privilege, Lord John did not know why he should not treat this bill as one unworthy the consideration of the Commons ; but he hoped he should be excused—that he should not be thought to renounce any of tlieir privileges—if he passed by the ques- tion of privilege, in order to arrive at the merits of the question. The bill, in fact, had not for its object to add any thing to the Consolidated Fund, or to furnish any thing in the way of Supply to the King. That part of it which related to the Consolidated Fund was merely incidental ; and be should be very sorry, by interposing a question of privilege, to prevent the House from coming to a decision on the sub- stantial question before it. At the same time, he gave up nothing as regarded the privileges of the House ; and he must say, that this was not a time when the House should be forward in surrendering any of its privileges with respect to Supply. He proceeded to state the alterations made by the Peers in the bill. First, as to the alteration of the rent- charge from seven-tenths to three-fourths, he should only say that Ile knew of but one reason for it—the impression that the Church revenues were better collected now than sonic time ago. Secondly, the incomes of the clergy were altered. The provision in the original bill was, that when there were few Protestants the income of the clergyman should not exceed a certain amount, but that it should be proportionally

increased with the numbers of the Protestants. Undoubtedly the effect of this would be, that tithes paid by the Catholics of the South would be distributed among the Protestants of the North ; but then,

a compensation for this was to be found in the provision for devoting 50,000/. a year for the education of the people generally. But the Lords, with a view apparently of taking care that there should be 110

surplus had provided that the income of no clergyman should be re-

duced 1:elow MU a year, although bis church might be empty ! He held in his hand a list of nine parishes with a Protestant population varying

from 14 to 72—in all 247—for whose religious instruction 5,790/. a year was paid. The Lords proposed, that in future 2,7001., or W. a head, should be devoted to these parishes ; and the surplus was to be given the clergymen of parishes with more than 1000 Protestants. Thus, in Belfast, there are 17,942 Churchmen, and in the Archdeacony of Dublin 15,599: these parishes might be divided, arid the surplus of the income of the fourteen parishes above-named might be paid over for the support of the wealthy Protestants of Belfast and Dublin. Now how was such an arrangement to satisfy the Irish people ? Dean Swift had said, that by paying a clergyman you only paid a country gentleman for wearing

a black coat ; but according to this bill, the money paid by the Catholics would be spent in Dublin or Belfast, and not by a gentleman resident

among them. Such a plan never could and never ought to give satis- faction. The Ministerial bill had detects and anomalies; but the ano- malies in the bill as returned to them from the Lords were ten times

more gross and glaring. It contained every thing objectionable, every thing contradictory, every thing irritating and vexatious ; and omitted every thing soothing and conciliatory. In the list of benefices there were many with few more than 100 Protestants, the incomes of the clergymen liming 500/. a year. In all these there was to be no altera- tion—no proportion between duty and emolument. Ministers had pro- vided most liberally for the Church. They left it two Archbishops and ten Bishops, the lowest with 5000/. a year. Clergymen with large congregations were to have 400/. or 500/. a year, and even the curates were better provided for than the English emirates. Having done this, then they provided for the instruction of the people ; but that object had been altogether omitted in the bill sent to them by the Lords. He adverted to the various majorities by which the principle of the Appro- priation-clause had been confirmed by the House of Commons, and to the great benefits which would have accrued to the Church had the Lords agreed with the Commons. The Government would have been pledged to collect the rent-charges—to stand between the clergymen and the tithe-payers, and to pay regularly 70 per cent. upon their nominal claims to the clergy, who would have stood by in ease and security, exempt from all squabbles incident to the collection of tithes. The people of Ireland would have seen, that if their petitions had not been altogether granted, yet that they were not forgotten in the settlement of the great question ; and whatever was unpalatable would have been smoothed down by a Government having a sympathy with the people. All this good the Lords had rejected by rejecting the principle of the hill. Lord John Russell said that he and his colleagues would not de- part from that princip,e- " It may he a question for the House to consider, whether, having solemnly adopted that principle, it is now prepared, because the House of Lords has re- jected it, to yield a point so important, and to endeavour to concur with the other branch of the Legislature, by accepting this bill, or by the introduction of a new measure ? If the Members of the House of Commons, the Represen- tatives of the People of the empire, choose to go to the bar of the Lords, and in bumble guise recant their former solemn resolution, agree to the rejection of its principle, acknowledge their error, accept the lesson of wisrlmn and policy taught them by the Lords, and submit to their dictation, I can only say that I would not accompany them. (Mitch. cheering.) We are prepared to stand upon the principle we have protisised. We maintained that that principle was essential to a final settlement of the Tithe question, when we were out of office ; and it; while we are in office, the House of Commons thinks proper to affirm an opposite principle, amounting to a denial of that whieh we asserted, of course it will be our duty to resign, and to pretend no longer to govern the councils of this country." ( Cheers from all sides.) It had been said that the Tithe question would be settled if the bill of' the Lords were agreed to ; but nothing could he more preposterous. So far from settling it, they would only be provoking a fresh contest— renewed agitation. What had been the consequence of agitation on a less exciting question than that of tithes—Catholic Emancipation ? On this subject he would read the words of one for whom he should always entertain the highest respect—Lord Brougham. Speaking on this point, Lord Brougham had said.— " The burden of the cry was, ' It is no time for concession ; the people are turbulent, and the Association dangerous.' That summer passed, and the fer- ment subsided not. Ault lllll I came, but brought not the blessed fruit of peace : on the contrary, all Ireland was convulsed with the unprecedented conflict whieh returned the great chief of the Catholics to sit in a Protestant Parlia- ment. Winter bound the earth in chains, but it controlled not the popular fury, whose surges, more deafening than the tempests, lashed the frail bulwarks of law founded upon injustice. Spring came, but no ethereal mildnesse'revra was

its harbinger, or followed in its train m

: the Catholics became stronger by v mouth's delay, displayed a deadlier resolution, and proclaimed their wrongs In a tone of homer defiance than !refine. And what course did you, at this mo- ment of greatest excitenwnt, and peril, awl menace, deem it most fitting to sue? Eight months before, you had been told how unworthy it would be to yield when men clamoured and threatener!. No change had happened in the Interval, save that the claniours were become far more deafening, and the threats beyond comparisou more overhearing,. What, nevertheless did your Lordships do ?—Your duty; for you despised the cuckoo-note of the season, ' not to be intimidated.' Vim granted all that the Irish demanded, and you • saved your country. Was there in April a single argument advanced which had not held good in July ?—None, absolutely none, except the new height to winch the dangers of longer delay had risen, and the increased vehemence with which justice was demanded ; and yet the appeal to your pride which had pre- vailed in July was made in vain in April, and you wisely and patriotically granted mm hat was asked, and ran the risk of hieing supposed to yield through fear!"

At that time there was at the bead of the Government a man who

from the calamities of war had learned how to estimate the blessings of peace ; but he feared that now there was no person who could control the opponeuts of the Irish claims as the Duke of Wellington had done. Their opponents now would carry on the resistance to the Irish claims in a very different spirit. "Now," said Lord John, addressing the Opposition Members- " You would have crime and outrage excite,' and kept up by every means, stowing itself where it was least expected, least hoped to exist ; you would which Cr nr.s of justice becoming ing places fro whicha mandates would issue, b great outrage would take place; you would have the people of this country ex- cited against the people of Ireland, from declamation against their religion, from imputations against their country, awl from reflections against their race-- 0Inch cheering/'sum the Ministerad benchts)--and all for the purpose of pro- moting, first, a national feeling on the part of Englishmen that they were bound in honour to resist the claims of the Irish people, and secondly, a national feeling on the part of Irishmen that they were not to meet justice from Eng- land. (Lose' and repeated cheers.) And, indeed, Sir, I think I am not mounting to any extravae-ant height when I express my belief, that no means, however base, however despicable, however criminal, would be spared t•: cite this religious dissension. Forgery itself—( Prolonged cheers)—might be resorted to fir the purpose of provoking the Protestant people of England against their Catholic fellow countrymen ; and,„no doubt, there would be found too many people, who, when the fraud was discovered, would be ready to re- gard it as merely ingenious device.' (Lora and prolonged cheering from the Ministerial* benches: in which several of the Opposition joined.) "ires, Sir, under the system 1 am describing., you would have injustice perpetuated under the name of law, and hatred inculcated under the guise of religion."

He advised the Opposition not to depend on large majorities in the House of Peers. In the American War, they who were for concilia- tion seldom numbered a quarter of the Legislature. On one occasion, an ancestor of his own divided with onlyforr against a motion of the Lord Chancellor of the day ; arid he was convinced that with regard to the Irish claims, denial of justice would be followed up by tardy, perhaps ineffectual submission. Lord John Russell concluded by moving that the further consideration of the amendments of the Lords be postponed to that day three months.

Sir ROBERT PEEL rose with an air of much importance, and observed, that if there was any ground for supposing that their privi. =shad been infringed by the course taken by the Peers in regard to hill, it was their duty to guard their privileges by rejecting it on that account; and not to content themselves, as Lord John Russell had done, with a half assertion and then an abandonment of their right. He contended that the Lords had done nothing inconsistent with the privileges of the Commons ; and quoted Hatsell's Precedents in con- firmation of his opinion, that as the bill was not one of Supply, or af- fecting the taxation of the people, the Commons had no right to com- plain of the alterations made by the Lords. He was for coming di- rectly to the question ; but would not allow Lord John Russell to pick up the stray votes of those who, disapproving of his motion, might still reject the Lords' amendments under the idea that they infringed upon their privileges. He would refer to and abide by the decision of the Speaker upon this question ; and if it was decided that the House ought not to entertain the bill of the Lords on the ground that it was a money bill altered, then he would give Ministers an opportunity of discussing the question on its merits, by moving for leave to bring in a bill of the same description as that which they were now called upon to consider. Sir Robert then appealed formally to the Speaker.

Lord Joins RUSSELL interposed, amidst loud cries of " Chairs Chair!" to state that he had distinctly expressed his opinion, that though the alteration of the Lords in that clause which related to the payment into the Consolidated Fund was of a nature to bring the question formally within the privileges of the House, still, as the bill was not one of Supply to the King, but for the regulation of the moral Instruction of the Irish people, be had thought it best not to raise the question of privilege, but proceed to discuss the real merits of the question before the Ilouse.

Sir ROBERT PEEL professed himself quite at a loss to reconci'. .ae reference to the kicking a bill out of the House, with the whisper of a doubt, the gcniitus culunibm, they had just heard.

The SPEAKER said, he would give his opinion as briefly as the im- portance of the question would allow.

"lithe bill had been limited to a new distribution of the existing property "lithe bill had been limited to a new distribution of the existing property of the Irish Church, I am of opinion, that difference between this House and the House of Lords as to the proportions in which that property should be dis- tributed, would not have been a violation of the privileges of the Commons.

If the grant of 50,000/. per annum fur education had been left in the bill, the

Lords could not have diminished the amount of the contemplated surplus, be- cause that would have diminished the fund to be applied to the repayment of

the Consolidated Fund, and would have been inconsistent with the privileges of this House, because it would have increased the burdens on the people. The difficulty arises from the insertion of the grant of 50,0001. for education. In considering this bill, I have looked to the privileges of the Lords as well as of the Commons; and I feel, that the clause remaining, the Lords could have made no other amendment than to give a little more or a less to the clergy, but without altering the total amount. Still it may be said, that this House has made a grant on the condition of the Lords agreeing to the whole bill ; and the question is, whether they might not contend that that grant having been made, the Lords had no right to alter the bill? This would be a strong assertion of privilege; and it is chiefly in the view of this case being quoted as a precedent that I think this question important. The House has, therefore, to consider whether they will press their privilege so far, or whether, if they consent to 'Pee with the Lords' amendments, they will not guard against the effect of the precedent by a special entry on their journals."

Sir ROBERT PEEL proceeded. " The point of privilege being thus disposed of "—

The SPEAKER interrupted Sir Robert, to correct his apparent misap- prehensionge This House proposed to make a grant of money on certain considerations, and embodied the grant, coupled with the considerations upon which it was to be made, in a bill, and sent it up to the House of Lords. The question is, whe- ther such a bill is to be regarded as a money bill, and whether an alteration of its provisions by the House of Lords is to be regarded as an infraction of the privileges of this House ?"

Sir ROBERT PEEL considered himself at liberty, at any rate, to con- sider the bill before the House, unembarrassed by the question of pri- vilege. He observed that be had been charged with consenting to an alienation of Church property, by voting for the deduction of 25 per cent. from the tithes to be paid by the landlord ; but that was incor- rect, seeing that the 25 per cent. was given merely us a compensation for the liability to pay transferred by the bill from the occupying tenant to the landlord. With respect to the alterations of the Lords, he con- tended that they were perfectly fair, and that the allowance of 300/. a year was little enough for an educated clergyman, whose benefice might extend over thirty square miles. The Lords had also provided that any surplus fund that might accrue from the reduction of the in- comes of certain benefices should be devoted in the first instance to the building of glebe-houses, there being 400 benefices in Ireland with- out glebe-houses. Was there any thing unreasonable in that ? He was surprised to hear Lord John Russell oppose the application of funds raised in one part of the country to the payment of clerical in- comes in another, especially when he recollected Lord John's support of the Established Church Bill, which diverted from the see of Dur- ham funds which were claimed for Durham purposes. The education clause had been struck out by the Lords ; but be would say now as be had said before, that if a case were made out for it, he was ready to vote 50,000/. out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of educa- tion, on the understanding that, conformably with the plan of Lord Stanley and the promise of Lord Morpetb, it should on no account be used for the purpose of educating the people in Catholic tenets. He

i

agreed with Lord Stanley, that in the circumstances of Ireland, f the people were to be educated at all, it must be on the broad principles of Christianity, without reference to particular faith. For such a pur- pose he would vote money out of the revenue of the country; and it was, therefore, unfair for Lord John Russell to pretend that to pro- vide education for the impoverished tenant, it was necessary to alienate the property of the Church. The benefits that would accrue from passing the bill as returned to them by the Lords, might be thus summed up- " By the bill, as it now stands, you get a reduction of 25 per cent. on the amount of composition for tithe; you impose the whole of the rent-charge estat Wished in lieu of tithe upon the landlord ; you relieve the occupying ten.an- altogether from any direct payment ; you remove the minister of the Establish- ment from any conflict with the tithe-payer, because you:place the collection of tithes in the hands of a department of the Government; you insure the revenue of every living, without exception, where the income of the clergyman is more than 5001. a year ; you insure also the revenue of every living situated in towns ; you insure a consideration of the state of the church, of the necessary repairs of the church, of glebes and of glebe-houses ; you take effectual pre- cautions against every alleged abuse in the Church, against pluralities' and against what hitherto have been considered exorbitant incomes ; all thesebene- ficial objects you will insure if you consent to adopt the bill as it now stands."

But all these advantages were rejected by Lord John Russell, be- cause the bill did not embody within Itself the principle of the alie- nation of' Church property—a principle rejected by a large majority in one House, and supported by a small and decreasing majority in the other. Sir Robert went on to contend, that if the clergy of the Church of Ireland were provided with incomes befitting educated gentlemen, bound to exercise hospitality, there could be no surplus. He denied that the bill, with the Appropriation-clause, would be likely to give satis.. faction to the tithe-payer, more than without it. What satisfaction would it be to the impoverished farmer to be told, that instead of paying fivepence to the clergyman, he was only to pay him fourpence, and the other penny to the Consolidated Fund, to repay a sum advanced from that fund for the purposes of education? They were told that the point now in dispute must be conceded at some future time ; but the question they bad now to consider was, whether the demand was just and reasonable, and whether the concession of it was likely to prom-lt mote the tranquillity of Ireland. Lord John Russell had said that his proposal would benefit the Church : on this point he was at variance with Lord Melbourne. Lord Melbourne had said in the house of Peers—.

" I cannot conceal from myself that this measure will be, in the first instance, and for a certain time, a heavy blow and a great discouragement to Protest- antism in Ireland ; and that it will be also a great triumph to the adverse party. I admit the great peril and danger which necessarily attends upon and accom- panies such mighty and fundamental changes. The shake and convulsion which they create render doubtful the safety not only of the Establishment, but of the Constitution itself." " Remembering (continued Sir Robert) the assu- rances you gave at the Union with respect to the Protestant Church in Ire- land ; remembering the hope you held out that the removal of civil disabilities, so far from prejudicing, would increase the security of that Church, I greatly doubt, whatever be the alternative, the justice or the policy of giving this heavy blow to Pretestantism in Ireland. If that blow be inevitable, this I know, that we are much more likely to seek some security against its prejudicial effects by resisting its course and standing erect against it, than by lending our arms to add vigour to it. (Loud cheers). If that heavy blow must he given, we will not unite in dealing it ; if that cheer of adverse triumph must be raised, our voices shall not swell the shout ; if the pillars of the Church, and of the Con- stitution itself, must undergo a shake and a convulsion, then we, seeing no abso- lute necessity for this injustice, protest against the policy of it, and refuse to be parties to it.

Sir Robert concluded by moving that the Lords' amendments be taken into consideration " now."

Mr. EVEI.YN DENISON spoke against, and Lord SANDON in favour of the Lords' amendments.

Mr. Hume said, that neither bill was sufficient for the purpose of reforming the Church of Ireland. He should be acting dishonestly if he said that the Ministerial measure went far enough ; but he consi- dered it very far superior to that which came from the Lords, and he took it with the intention to make a further demand when time and place suited. It was impossible to consider the bill, if it passed, as a final measure. Sir Robert Peel had asked triumphantly whether 3001. a year was too much for an educated clergyman ? but there were in England 5230 curates whose incomes averaged 81/. a year only. If he were consistent, Sir Robert Peel would vote to give every working clergyman in England 300/. a year— Mr. Hume would have clergymen paid on the same principle that soldiers and sailors were paid. Yes, and be looked upon it that clergymen were far below soldiers and sailors in the services they rendered to the country. But the truth was, that the whole of this struggle was for the loaves and fishes. It was all a love of money. ( Cheers and laughter.) The struggle was how to make the most money of the Church, and to pay as little as possible to those who did the most work.

Sir Robert Peel bad alluded to the smallness of the majority in support of the Appropriation principle— But did the tight honourable baronet forget his own speech when he was taking leave of office? In that speech he said that he had hoped to break down the majority of twenty that first appeared against him; but finding that he was unable to do so, and that the majority had increased to so large a num- ber as twenty-seven, he thought it his duty to resign. (Ministerial cheers.) Yet, after this, the right honourable baronet said that the Government ought not to persevere with so small a majority as twenty. six. Honourable gentlemen opposite really forgot themselves. They were like the animals that thought no one could see them but themselves. They were like the Chinese eye, that thought no one equal to it. (Laughter.) He would recommend Sir Robert Peel to read his own speech made to his own Parliament, where be confessed that he could not go on with a majority of twenty-seven against him. But then Sir Robert said that he had the Lords with him. What cared he about the Lords? (Laughter.) Let the Lords confine themselves to their own Chamber. What community of feeling was there between the Lords and the people of this country ? And could it be said that the people of England were advel se to the claims of the Irish nation? They called themselves, he be- lieved, sometimes the hereditary protectors of the poor ; but did the poor look upon them as protectors at all ? The fact was, that the people now saw through them. Ile advised Sir Robert Peel to yield now as be had yielded before....-1 He would remind the right honourable baronet of his persevering opposition for many years to conceding the claims of the Roman Catholics, and how he was afterwards driven to a sudden concession of those claims. He wou!il re- commend him to benefit by past experience, and concede Church Reform in time. This would be no further a blow to the Protestants of Ireland than it went to destroy that Orange faction which had so long prevented the people of Ireland from being treated as they ought. It would be a blow struck at oppression, and to relieve the oppressed. Mr. Straw contended that the whole of the Church revenues would afford but very moderate incomes for the clergy, and that there would be no surplus. He denied that the Catholics paid the tithes : every- body knew that they were paid by the Protestant landlords. 1-le sup- ported the amended bill, as one that would give peace to Ireland. Mr. O'Loctier.sr reminded Mr. Shaw, that he bad opposed a bill giving 40 per cent. to the tithe-payer, on account of its inadequacy to restore tranquillity to Ireland how then did he suppose that a bill which deducted only 25 per cent. from the tithes, would have that effect ? Sir Robert Peel had said that the 25 per cent. was a compensation merely for the transfer of a liability to pay tithes from the occupier to the landlord : but it happened that, at present, half the landowners were under contract to pay the whole of the tithe to the clergyman. There could be no transfer of liability ; and in the case of half the landowners there was, therefore, an alienation of Church property—i5 per cent. being taken from the Church and given to them. How would Sir Robert Peel answer that ? Mr. O'Loghlen adverted at some length to the charge of perjuty brought against the Catholic Members by the Bishop of Exeter, which he declared to be fake and calumnious. He asserted his right to vote on all subjects brought before Parliament ; and said that they who questioned this right, should move to expel Catholic Members from the House— Attempts might be made to excite the prejudices of the people of England by raising the cry of " the Church in danger," and by other ingenious devices ; but did they believe that they could make a convert of any person who was a Roman Catholic, by the terror of the writs of rebellion, and the large costs of suits in the Court of Exchequer ? Did they imagine they could extend the Protestant religion in that way ? It would be a better remedy for the evils of which they complained, to give their support to this bill. He knew that in voting for it he should be denounced as an enemy of the Established Church. He might be called " a tremendous peijurer ; " if he were, he could not help it. He denied that he ever was an enemy of the Protestant Church, or of the Protestant clergy : many of his best friends were members of the Protestant Church. lie would say, that he was indeed an enemy of that Church, who in any way tried, whether by political intrigue or otherwise, to taise himself to a station which he ought not to occupy ; and who, having attained it, instead of devoting himself to the promotion of peace and good-will among men, mixed in political strife, showed himself the slave of those bad, of those bigoted passions which disfigured human nature, and became the propagator of any calumnies which malice or bigotry might invent. (Much cheering.) Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that he was satisfied to leave Roman Catholic Members to interpret the oath according to their own con- sciences ; feeling assured that if those gentlemen believed the bill as sent up to the other House was calculated to overthrow the Church, they would have opposed it. Sir James argued, that the settlement of the tithe question, proposed by Ministers, would not be satisfactory to the Irish ; and he read a long extract from a letter of Mr. Sharman Craw- ford to Mr. O'Connell in confirmation of that opinion. Neither would it be satisfactory to the people of England; and that was evident from the results of the elections which had taken place since the question of Appropriation had been brought forward in Parliament. Sir James referred to the defeat of the Liberal candidates in several counties; and in Newcastle—one of those towns which were described as the seats of enlightment as distinguished from the stupid ignorance which was said to pervade the counties. The late Member for Newcastle had been threatened (as he had himself been) with the loss of his seat for opposing Ministers on thts question ; but the result proved that there was as little danger for a candidate of his opinions in Newcastle, as for himself in Cumberland. There was a witness behind him (Mr. Hodg. son) who would say that he hid been elected expressly on the ground of his opposition to the A pproptiation principle. [Here Sir James was interrupted by a Member on the Ministerial benches, who called out " Triennial Parliaments ! " Sir James, thinking he said " Try a new Parliament," observed that it was excellent advice. Being triode aware of his mistake, he remarked that several of the Ministers were opposed to Triennial Parliaments.] The interruption seemed to dis- concert Sir James ; who, quitting that part of his subject, proceeded to ridicule the Ministerial measure, as one totally inadequate for the pur- pose it professed to have in view; and contended, that the real aim of the Catholics was to seize Protestant property for their own Church.

Mr. SIIEIL said, be would tell Sir James Graham the meaning of the exclamation "Triennial Parliaments !" which he did not appear to have understood. At the Newcastle election, the unsuccessful candidate was asked if he would support Triennial Parliaments, which he declined to do, while his opponent was pledged to vote for them. The unsuc- cesfill candidate had also been a Tory Member for one of the Duke of Northumberland's boroughs, while his opponent had voted for the Reform Bill ; therefore, Sir James would see that the standard of successful Toryism was not unfurled at Newcastle. As to Cumber- land, lie knew little of it ; but in 1831, Sir James Graham delivered a speech which was very well received, and was an indication of the state of popular feeling there. Sir James, speaking of Sir James Scarlett, said be had once been his "valued friend," but was now "a recreant Whig." Sir James also advised the people to exact a pledge in favour of Reform from Lord Lowther. This showed the state of public feel- ing in Cumberland. lie was glad to See that Sir James did not coin- cide with the Bishop of Exeter in his imputation of perjury. Indeed, Sir James had differed much from the Bishop, both in theory and pm. ctice. In 1830, he had given notice of a motion denouncing the Bishop for bolding the living of Stanhope in commendant, and now he -Tudiated the imputation of perjury on his Catholic fellow subjects. That did him credit.

"With respect to the Catholic oath," continued Mr. Sheil, "I do assure the right honourable baronet, that, as far as I am individually concerned, I have no intention to subvert the Chutch. I wish to curtail it; I wish to reduce it to the dimensions of the Church of Scotland ; I wish to proportion the payment to the service performed ; where there are no Protestants, I see no pretence for paying a clergyman the exorbitant sum of 300i. a year. The right honour- able baronet adverted to the speech of the Member for Tamworth, in which that right honourable gentleman declared, that if the pillars of the Church must at last be shaken, he at least would not concur in their concussion, nor be accessory to their prostration. Sir, I do not desire to overthrow the pillars of the Church ; I wish to take down the golden dome, in order to prevent it by its fall from burying the altar under its ruins." (Loud cheers.)

He was glad that the question of privilege bad been abandoned, but glad also that it had been introduced-

" lam glad that, on mere matter of form, the debate has not turned ; but I am also glad that the great prerogatives of the People have been recalled to the public recollection. The time may not be far distant when the redress of grirv • ances must precede the supply of the exigencies of the Crown. But although privilege is put aside, let not dignity be forgotten. For once let us follow the example of the Lords. They rejected the amended Municipal Reform Bill, use it was inconsistent with their House to recede from the ground which they had deliberately taken; and shall we, after having passed a resolution de- dal atory of the policy by which Ireland must be for the future governed-0We having, with that resolution, annihilated and created a Cabinet—after having embodied the principle of that resolution in two successive bills, in two succes- sive sessions—shall we, I say, accept a bill founded on a principle diametrically the reverse of that thus solemnly and repeatedly adopted, and without which we have proclaimed the tranquillity of Ireland to be hopeless?"

The seven millions of aliens and perjurers would scarcely be recon- ciled to the measure by the share which Lord Lyndhurst and the Bishop of Exeter had had in its production-

" The conjunction of this honest lawyer and of this Christian ecclesiastic is not a little curious. I remember a striking speech against Catholic Emanci- pation, made by Sir John Copley as Master of the Rolls, which Mr. Canning more than intimated was derived from a notorious pamphlet of the day. Mr. Canning exclaimed ' This speech " Was once Toby Philpott's—." (Loud laughter.) Is it not an odd cointilence, that Copley and Phillpotts, the one metamorphosed into my Lotd Lyndhurst, and the other into the Itiost Reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Exeter, should be still politically associated ; and that the former should denounce WI aliens, and the latter should involve a whole nation in one comprehensive and flagitious imputation? Aliens i and perjurers ' Is this the Conservative process of conciliation, and is t thus that those passions are to be assuaged which disturb the peace and arrest the prosperity of our unfot tunate country ! " (Long and continued cheers.) He wished to consider not only the merits of the question, but the relative strength of the contending parties, and the chance each had of victory- " Who are you, and who are we? My answer to the first question shall be fair ; and you will permit me, in answesing the second question, to be frank Do not imagine that I mean to undervalue the impurtance of the Conservative party. I am willing to take you at your own price, which is rather a high standard of appreciation. You say that you have the Aristocracy, the Gentry, the Clergy, the Army, the Magistracy, and the Ilouse of Lords. You have not all the House of Lords: you have not the Cavendishes, nor the Russells, no, nor the Stanleys in the House of Lords. (Loud cheers.) Some of you say that you have the King, and that Windsor is only an appurtenance to Apsley House. I do not agree in this opinion ; for I remember that the Duke of Clarence, on the 23d of February 1829, turned to the bench of Bishops and asked them whether they would dare to call themselves the ministers of peace if they conti ibuted to civil war in Ireland ? (Loud cheers.) This speech I beg respectfully to recommend to the episcopal meditations of Dr. Phillpotts; and I trust that one of the dignitaries of the Church will derive advantage from the truly Christian sentiments expressed by the illustrious personage who is now its head."

He would now tell them who their opponents were— "But it is better that before I tell you who we are, I should first tell you whet we were. In 1793 we were not half in number that we now are; we had no intelligence, no education, no concert, no property ; and yet even then we ex- torted from England the elective franchise. England put into a band which she did not know to be gigantic, a weapon from the armoury of the constitution, with which from crest to centre Toryism has been cloven. I spring with a single bound over an interval of fin ty. three yeats, and hurry to the 13th of Ain il 1829. On that day the great charter of Irish liberty was ratified, and the King uttered fleet. words ofpower, Le lloi le veut.' Nu. he did nut choose it, nor did you chooke it, not the Lords, nor the gentry, nor the clergy, nor the army, nor the magisti try ; but we were resolved upon it, arid I tell you that to the question before the Houee we bring the same uneunquerable will and the same ind *table determination ; and that, delay this question as you may, ex- cite the fanaticism of England as you may, employ this question to get into Downing Street as you may, still you niu•t yield at last, and to beland, at last, justice shall lie done. (Renewed cheers.) I know that you are in the habit of speaking and of writing with derision upon the phrase, " Justice to Ireland." It is quite natural that you should do so. At Madilll they laughed at justice to the Creole. At the Hague they laughed at justice to Belgium. There is an exceedingly good picture by Copley in the National Gallery of the death of Chatham, arid I remember that on the morning on which I read the Alien speech, I was struck by that picture, and while I looked upon the fine re- presentation of the expiring statesman, some of the most remarkable words which he had ever uttered came back to my recollection—" Do justice to America; do it to-night—do it before you sleep."

The contest should not be carried on in the field—there should not be another Boyne or Auebrim, but the battle should be fought on that floor. But to revert to details-

" What is the state of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland? Let us take Roman Catholic property first into consideration. I know it is the fashion to say the Irish Roman Catholics are destitute of property. It is natural that you should think se, for your ancestors left us tolerably bare. You put Ireland through a process unexampled in the history of confiscation. If I may be per- mitted to play upon a word, I should say that the history of Irish Protestantism is to be found in Rapin. (Laughter.) You not only took ilea), all we had, but you prevented us from acquiring any thing. It was not until 1732 that a Roman Catholic could purchase an estate. But since that time our progress in ter- ritorial acquisition has been great, and, as is obvious, must every day increase. But I am free to admit that the bulk of fee-simple property is Protestant. I stop not to ask how much of it is in mortgage to Roman Catholics. My case is this, that the mass of property to which political influence is an incident, is in the hands of the middle classes. Before the Reform Bill, the great Protes- tant proprietors nominated to boroughs, and thus political influence was attached to their estates. But a complete transfer of this influence has taken place to the body of the inhabitants of towns sending Members to Parliament."

As an ocular proof of this change, Mr. Shea pointed to Sir Robert Inglis, once Lord Roden's Member for Dundalk, now represented by that sturdy Reformer Mr. Sharman Crawford- " The fact is, that the political influence once connected with individual Pro-

testant property has been completely handed over to the mass of merchants, traders, and the various classes employed in the different pursuits of busi- ness in the Parliamentary boroughs. The same is very much the case in several of the counties of Ireland, which have not been divided, nor, if I may fabricate the word, been Chandosized. (Loud cheers.) The voters in popu- lous towns outweigh the aristocracy even in county elections, and the grocers beat the squires. It must thus appear evident that not only the numbers are with us, but that the property distributed amongst those Members is more effi- cacious for Parliamentary purposes, and those purposes are the only ones which, in a country governed by Parliament, ought in legislation to be taken into ac- count. There are various other sources of affluence and of influence opened to the man of the community besides agriculture and trade. Formerly the Pro- trstants of Ireland enjoyed a complete monopoly of the patronage of the Crown. The Pactolus of the Royal bounty rose in the Castle to discharge itself into the reservoir of Protestantism ; but now, without distinction of religion, an indiscriminate participation takes place in the dignities and emoluments coa- nected with the departments of the state. The different professions have bees thrown open to us. Take the bar as an example of the effect produced by the

career which is furnished to the talents of the Irish Catholics. In the year 1812, Mr. Sauna denounced us as miscreants, and now one of those miscreants is his Majesty's A t'alvey-General. ( Loud cheers.) Boman Catholics are in all branches of business at the bar at its highest points. My learned friend the Metnber fur Cashel, who holds a topmost place DI his profession, is one of his Majesty'', law officers; and my fnend the Member for Clotnnel, ffir talents, learning, and station is uneurpassed at the Chancery bar. To the bench these men are rapidly nuaking their way." He next alluded to the state of the mass of the Irish people- " If we were seven millions of mere uointellectual, dull, insensible de- graued serfs, a mere mass helotism, to our seven millions little regard diould be paid. Oace we were sunk indeed by the penal code, but a marvellous change has taken place. Alen often talk of the great improvement which has taken place in Ireland ; awl in doing so, they refer merely to its ex- ternal aspect: its moral one has undergone a still greater alteration. Nut only has the plough climbed to the top of the mountain, and cultiva- tion pierced into the morass, but the mind of Ireland has been reclaimed. (Loud (heers.) You educate our people; aud with education of the people the long ,cuntinnance of uneatural and unjust institutions is incompatible.

Bub,it eduration has dune much, agitation has done more. Although it may have been attended with many evils, it has been accompanied by one

peat countervailing good. Public opinion, which behwe did not exist, has been created in Itelatol. The minds of tuen of all classes have been inlaid with the great principles on W Lich the rights of the majority depend. This salutary influence has ascended to the higlwr classes, spread among the middle, and descended among the lower. The humblest peasant has been nobly iffeeted by it. Even in the midst of the most abject destitution, he has begun to ac- quire a sentiment of self respect. ' lie venerates himself a 111:tik: renieniber the time when, if you struck an Irish peasant, he cowered beneath the blow. Strike him .—the spirit of offended manhood starts up in a breast covered with rags. This Celtic blood boils up as yours would ; and he feels and he acts as if he were born in this noble land of yours, where the person of every British citizen is sacred from affront, and from his birth he had breathed that moral atmosphere which Britons are accustomed to inhale. No, sir, we are not what we were. We have not caught the accents of your voices, indeed, lint we have caught the intonations of your rhymes. lingiishmen, we are too like you to give you leave to keep us down." (Loud chters.) Mr. Shed concluded by asking what. the Tories would do if they risked and were beaten in another general election ?-

Mr. HODGSON said, that in L445, when he lost his election, lie had pledged himself to vote for Triennial Palliatnents : ut the last election he had not been asked for any pledge ; but had been returned without soliciting a single vote, 011 the declaration that he would vote against the alieuation of Church property.

Mr. Ilaavev said, that though be bad refused to vote when this question was last before the House he should vote that night, when the question was whether they should atecept or reieet the bill sent down from the Lords, stripped of its only itimit—the Appropriation-

clause. Ile bad listened to Alr. eloquent speech ; hut though that gentleman referred much to the past, he had riid nothing of the future operation of the bill. For his part, he did nut expect it to pro- duce tranquillity jul Ireland. Mr. Shell had disclaimed all wish to in- jure the Protestant Church ; but it appeared to Inin that a Catholic must wish to subvert it— As the case stood at prisent, the Church Estalilishirent of Ireland was con- ducted upon principles to which the great majority it' the people wen., in their consciences, opposed, and he was one who thought that, it a Church Establish- ment was to be maintained at all, it ought at least to lie an establishment whose tenets were in conforitii.y to the docttines and feelings predominant amongst the iii ijority of the population. The institutions of the country ought to be applied to the utmost po-sible extent according to the wants and desires of the people. rpon this principle he held it to be impossible to maintain a Church Establishment in Ireland which was made use of by a small luiiuuuritv of communicants. What coarse, then, was to he pursued ? The only course, in his opinion, was to withdraw all legislative countenance front both Churehee, and to apply the revenues oldie Chita eh to the mo, al instruction and comfort of the people at large.

He looked upon the Appropriation-clause as a worthless, dry As. straction-

It pretended to apply a certain surplus of Church revenues to the education of the people in Ireland; but where was that surplus to be found ? The very advocates of die measure chid not anticipate that they would have any thing of

the kind for half a century to come, and then it would only a t to some- thing about 50,0.10/. a year ; awl in the mean time the anticipations of that surplus fund were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. What, then, did all this quarrelling about Approptiation come to? Why both parties seemed to understand the principle pretty well, and to act upon it too, by taking care of themselves; only that the Cutiservarives were more honest than their oppo- nents. (Loud citeers from the Opposition.) But there was another question- to be considered in relation to this subject—namely, the proposal to forgive the 700,000L advanced out of the Million Loan—

It would be recollected that when the House was applied to by Lord Althorp for a sum of money to meet the deficiency in the tithe payments of the years 1800 and 1S32, their feelings were harrowed by the touching descriptions which were given of the state to which the working clergy in Ireland had been reduced by the systematic resistance which had been made to the payment of tithes. Curates, men of small estate, but hard worked in their holy avocation,

were represented as being entirely dependent for support, together with their large families' upon the precarious bounty of their neighbours. One honourable Member stated the distress to be so great in many parts, that a poor curate was unable to raise the money to release a letter addressed to him from the post- office. Well, in consequence of all these appeals, the Million vote was carried; under the understanding, however, that it was to be repaid to the public purse by a sort of land-tax, spread over a 'unlace of five years time.

But so far from this money being given to distressed curates, it was handed over in lumps to noble laymen and female laymen, if be might so term them....

" I find on the list every class of persons. There are those on it who find their justification in the magnitude of the sums which they demand, and others again iu the paucity of then amount. There is nothing too large for them to seize—there is nothing too small for them to take. I find amongst them sonic very large recipients; and what is remarkable, there is a certain coinci-

dence between the magni!ude of the title as well as the noble possessois' re- sources and the sums which they have taken. The Duke of Devonshire, fur

" They bid us yield to the Lords. Will they, in that event, yield to the People ? Will they give up the great prinuiple on which their resistance is founded? If the Member for Lancashire will (ay out that lie will resist it to the death, the Member for Tatnwurth is too wise to do so." ( Loud cheering.) instant*, has actually condescended first ta borrow and next to accept in charity • no less a sum than 3,6641. Now, Sir, not to travel out of the order' of nobi- lity, whilst dukes have been cramming noble nuns, earls too have had their share, and one of them, the Earl of Essex, had some pickings of crumbs amount- ing to 86/. 13s. 4d."

They were told not to speak irreverently of the absent; but there were names ot Members of that House on the list who were present to defend themselves-

" I should like to know whether those honourable Members mean to vote on this occasion ? We have heard a great deal lately of honourable Members sitting

on Commuters; or taking part in the discussion upon quest. . in which they have the slightest personal interest. Now, I cannot think that some ho- noontide Members will sanction a measure by their vote, one of the objects of which is to relieve them front the payment of a debt, which they, as recipients of the Million, have consented to incur. As this return is in the hands of ho- nourable Members, they can easily see whether they are amongst the number of those who receive any portion of the Million, or whether they are not. When, on a former occasion, the Persion-list was before the House, I alluded to dee* who received the pensions without reserve ; but what will the House feel when they are info, mei!, that there are in that list which is now produced, ladies, residing in this metropolis, who received part of that grant of a million as lay. impropriatine ? Now this is a most flagrant perversion of the original intention of the grant ; particularly when, on looking over the debates for the purpose of strengthening my recollection, I find that Lord Althorp, when same distant intimation of an apprehension front past experience was made by any hot ourable Member (though he was disinclined to suppose that so bad an ex- ample would be followed) of the event, that what was originally a loan would, by some means or other, be converted into a gift—when I say such an opinion vivras itelirectly expressed, Lord Aldine!), whose fancy and vivid imagina- tion were instantly touched by the expression of the remotest apprehension of such a riream.tance, declared, that if he could possibly conceive such an event to arise, he should be the last man to make the proposition which he thea submitted. And yet I am bound to say, that if the list be looked to, the Whigs will be found to have at all events as deep a finger in the purse as the Tories." (Laughttr and Opposition cheers.)

They were told that if Ministers were beaten on this question they would retire-

" And here I must allude to the repetition of the ohl story. which I had fancied was almost worn-out—namely, that `if you leave 3finisters in a mines. rit)' on this question, it will so agitate the vessel of the state that in all pro- bability it will be engulfed in general ruin.' Now really this is a topic OR Whial I can scarcely bring myself to speak with seriousness. The idea of this great nation being left in a state of destraction, the cables of the vessel of the state cut, and she in danger of running into the wide sea, without having any guide to direct her into port,—this statement implies an imputation on the capa- city of the people of this empire which I can scarcely for a moment entertain. Why, let the 'Furies come in. ( Opposition cheers.) How long would they re- main in power ? dust so long as they desetved. (Ironical cheers.) They can't stand an hour, unless they are prepared to mend their manners and their mea- sures. But, unfortunately, if they were once in, they need not do much more than stick pretty closely to the tactics of predecessors, and give out, that as they found a great deal of unfinished work on ham', they must first turn that out before they take any new orders; so that in this way a session or two may be consumed before they begin on their own account. But none of those who feel hound to withhold their vote from 'Ministers on this or any such occasion, should

be guided by any apprehension of the result. We ought to act in such matters by the rule which guides our conduct in private life; we ought to do that which is right, and which the country requires. The country understands the thing very well. We have been six years, since November 1830, looking forward to measures of substantial relief; but whether we take the measures with respect to the Church, the law, or taxation, or with reference to any of those manifold departments which were thought would be better administered, we have been grievously disappointed."

He was disiticlined to vote for the Appropriation- clause, because it seemed to imply a doubt of the power of Parliament to deal with Church property without it-

" But even supposing that this clause hail originally any value in it, the worth which it posiessed was snipped from it by the Ministers themselves; who, I cannot help thinkitig, regret that they ever took it in bawl, because I and several other honourable .Members who voted for that clause voted for it with this view, diat the exaniple of the reformation of the Church of Ireland would travel to that of England, and when once the power of the House was affirmed of appropriating a surplus, the example would become invaluable whenever the reformation of the abuses of the English Church was proposed. But have the Government so acted ? Quite otherwise. We have a bill for a better &stns. bution of Church revenue, which is lauded by Bishops, and with respect to which the Prime Minister dealt out summary chastisement on any one who ventured to hint a different appropriation of Church property. It has beers actually stripped by the Government of all benefit which the application of its principle would afflict! if made with reference to the English Church. Well, then, this being the situation, the question is, I should say, that every gen- tleman who really believes that the extinction of tithes and the substitution of a land-tax are calculated directly and efficiently to tranquillize Ireland, ought

to support the measure without the Appropriation-clause; for that clause is, as I have said already, a mere abstraction. And what I want to know is this, whether any honourable Member who is familiar with the state of Ireland, with • the feelings of the people and their just expectations, really believes that this bill, whether it contain the Appropriation-clause or not, will have that effect. Sir, there is not a gentleman connected with that country, who knows Its real state, that will affirm that proposition. It is much better that the Bash Church .40 should remain as it is for the present. The people of Ireland will be able to understand the merits of the question by the next session of Parliament. The

people of England do now understand it ; and I ant quite satisfied that the en- lightened reform and amelioration of the ecclesiastical establishments of both countries will be more speedily effected by having this bill, which provides for neither, postponed."

Mr. CAVENDISH defended the conduct of the Duke of Devonshire in applying for his tithe arrears out of the Million Loan ; which be proved, by quotations from the speeches of Mr. Littleton and other Members, was originally intended for the relief of lay as well as clerical tithe-owners. Lord STANLEY said, that the real question before the House had scarcely been touched upon. The question was this, and this only—: " Will you accept so much of your own measure as both Houses of Parhar_ ment are willing to carry into effect ; or will you, for another year at least (and,

say, for a hopeless year), go on protracting the misery and wretchedness of _the fecting conflict between parties in Ireland and parties in England, without ef your own object, which you say you desire, which you say would be of infinne benefit, and which we admit, but which you will not consent to have accom- plished with the consent of the House of Lords and with consent and satisfac- tion of a large br,dy of the Representatives of this Mouse, unless you can attach to it that which we think objectionable, which we cannot Majority 29 Jul' The House then adjourned, at two o'clock.

2. OPERATION OF THE Pooa-Law.

On Monday, Mr. POULETT THOMSON having moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Customs Duties Bill, Mr. Waurea moved an amendment, to the effect, that the House, early in the next session, should inquire into the mieration of the new Poor-law, particularly with regard to out-door relief, the separation of husbands from their wives, and of parents from their children in work- houses. lie denied that there was any occasion for that " tremendous invention," the new Poor-law, to cure the evils which arose under the

old system, Ina which did not properly belong to it. Ile maintained that, invariably, there bad been the greatest difficulty in enforcing its provisions, especially that of driving people into workhouses before they could receive relief. The people would have cursed the Reform Bill, if they had anticipated that one of its first fruits would have been a measure to remove the indigent and unfortunate from the care of their natural guardians to stipendiary strangers, and to substitute in that House the heartless speculations of political economists for the feel- ings of humanity. Mr. Walter descanted for some time in this strain, and concluded with the motion mentioned above.

Mr. CRIPPS bore testimony, from his own experience, of the admira- ble working of the new law in the agricultural districts. With regard to medical assistance, however, he thought the law might be amended. There could be little danger of allowing medicine to be given out of the workhouse. It was " aye " or "no"—would they accept the Lords' amendments, or would they postpone them ? Lord Stanley went on to argue, that if the Appropriation principle was conceded, the triumphant enemies of the Church would extort ene advantage after another, till the Esta- blishment was subverted. By a word Government might tranquillize Ireland : but if Ministers refused to pass the amended bill, they, and not the Lords, denied peace to Ireland.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG said, that he had intended to vote for the Lords' amendments ; but, upon a careful examination of the bill since he came down to the House, he found that, independently of the A ppropriation- clause, so many vital alterations had been made in the measure, that he could not as an honest and consistent man vote for it as it stood.

The House then divided: For the motion of Lord John Russell 2110 For Sir Robert Peel's amendment .

Lord JOHN RUSSELL animadverted on the conduct of a certain por- tion of the Magistracy of England, who endeavoured to obtain a false reputation for humanity, and under pretence of being the exclusive friends of the poor, fostered the worst abuses of the old system. He then defended the new law, especially that part of it which put an end to the pernicious practice of, paying able-bodied labourers out of the Poor-rates. The happiest consequences to the labouring population had arisen from this regulation. He protested against the practice of getting up individual cases, which.trobody could immediately contradict, though upon inquiry they almost always were proved to be unfounded ; and reminded Mr. Wakley, that he had been utterly misinformed with regard to a statement he laid made of the management of the Stow- market Workhouse. As to the workhouse dietary, he could state that one of the Guardians of the Poor had lived upon it himself for six weeks, and at the end of that period found himself in an improved state of health. He refused to give any opinion as to its sufficieory until he had made this experiment. Lord John concluded by reading the fol- lowing statement of the diminution in the Poor-rates effected since the new law came into operation.

Year. Amount or expenditure.

1834 £6,317,000 1835 5.518,000 1836 4,720,000

being a decrease, as compared with 1534,—

In 1835 of £799,000 In 1836 of 1,596,000.

The sum expended for lawsuits was, in 1834, 258,0001. • in 1836, 171,000/. ; showing a decrease of 87,000/. And the total amount of decrease, under various heads, whbffi he need not trouble the House by repeating, in the year ending on the 25th of March 1836, as compared with 1834, was 1,794,990/.

Mr. ROBINSON observed, that the cheapness of provisions and un- usual demand for labour had done much to produce this result. He had always protested against the cruelty of the bastardy clauses in the Poor-law, and continued strongly to disapprove of them.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET considered that it would be very proper to institute the inquiry proposed by Mr. Walter.

Mr. WAKLEY dwelt upon the hardship of forcing the poor into work- houses; and maintained that they were generally much dissatisfied with ttr,g.bill. He considered the food allowed to the inmates of work- iasves as insufficient. The person alluded to by Lord John Russell might have had a tendency to apoplexy, and be benefited by the restric- tion on his food ; but let any Member of that House try it !

Mr. MACLEAN thought that paupers should be allowed to attend divine service in their own parish-churches.

Mr. HARVEY said that Ministers had exhausted all their vigour in carrying their Poor-law: they had no energy left for any thing else. The diet in workhouses had been much extoPed ; and he thought no more proper course could be adopted, than to put the State paupers upon the same regimen—the men who lived upon the earnings of the wretches whose poverty they pretended to commiserate.

Mr. VILLIERS remarked, that though much had been said of the dissatisfaction of the people with the new law, it ought to be remem- bered, that out of two hundred and seventy-seven Unions which had been formed, complaints had been received from only two. From his own experience, he could speak to the beneficial operation of the Poor-law. It was a mistake to suppose that the labouring population liked the old system_

It was always said and believed that the English labourer liked to depend upon parish relief. Now, he knew the contrary to be the case; for when he commenced his inquiry, he determined to go among the poor themaelres, and learn from them what their feelings were on the subject, and he could assure honourable Members that what they called the poor wire fir more intelligent Ss

to the practices of their betters than they had the ciedit of being. lie (wed them having a perfect insight into the selfishnesa and fraud by which they were degraded to lw paupers; and they always agreed with him that the system was a cunningly-devised scheme for lower ing their wages and humbling them to the lowest pitch which the most selfish master could desire to see. Miii after man had told him that they did not wish to go to the parish for relief,but that farmer' and the employers of labour gave them starving wages, in order to drive them there to make other people pay. Ile had heard also, from labourers themselves, that many were relieved by the petty shopkeepers, if they would

spend the parish money at their shops ; and he had heard many a poor matt say, that when they saw men no worse off than themselves getting relief, why they had thought they bad as good a right to get it as they had ; and that they hail been induced to apply for parish money in consequence. And they an spoke of the change from times that they remembered, and said that if their wages were better they would never go to the parish. His impression then teas, that in every parish of the kiligilom there were a fair proportion of the poor who were ground down under the old Poor-law system, and who Ivould gladly have seen the system altered, so as to enable them to get high wages and be independent. To amend this system, the first thing to be done was to put an end to the practice of paying wages out of the rates— The first effect of preventing all this fraud in paying wages out of rates, is to raise the price of labour ; and his only object in wishing to see the Poor-law altered, was that parochial jobbing might be stopped, and that wages might rise. And whea he considered that the poor were not directly represcnte is this House, that tiny are first to benefit by the change of the system, and that those who are represented in a great measure in this House are interested in many of the abuses by which the poor suffered, he owned that he regarded all these motions with the view to return to the old system with some little Novi- cloth He was sure that honourable Members werewrong in not desiring to do any thing to prevent the poor depending 011 the parish and to enable them to get high wages. High wages he looked upon as the great test (lithe wellbeing of a country ; and in this country, where the ireople onlydesired to get work, and who we.e all industriously inclined, be thought it a peculiar object to secure for them high wages. But really, to heir some gentlemen speak about the pro- vision for pauperism, one would suppose that the first right of an Englishman was to lie a pauper ; whereas lie thought his first right was to have employ- merit, for his industry, and to receive the full value for it. Mr. Bitonirarros: admitted, that in many places the new law worked well ; but he thought that sonic alterations might be made with a good effect— Ile would allude more particularly to the separation of husbands front -.rives, and parents from children, and also to the difficulties thrown in the way of those confined in workhouses attending places of public worship. He admitted, however, that those difficulties did not originare with the present Poor-law Bill, for they existed before, although not to the extent that they were exercised now. Ile felt much upon this subject, because he was so imme- diately connected with the lower of ilers, whose interests he had deeply at heart. When the Poor law Bill was first introduced, he opposed it, Off the ground that he then thought it would be injurious to the manufacturing districts; but hai was happy to be able to state that the hill worked very well in those districts, with the exception of some ea-4.s of hardship which it entailed. Nothing could be mo,e painful to a marri«I ecomple who had lived long together than to be sepa- rated. Ile remembered when lie was Ovel seer, two or three years ago, an old man and woman applied to him for relief who had been married a great num-

ber of years, and they ikelarial to 1 • hat they would rather suffer death than

be separated. A ea.e had also come to his knowledge since the pas-ing of the

present Poor-laws, where a young woman applied to him to interfere to procure for her aged mother the continuance of a shilling a week which hail hitherto

been allowed her, but was now stopped,—the young woman's wish being to support her moodier, with the aid of this shilling a week, lather than suffer her to go to the workhouse. A third case be wis made acquainted with, where an old man complained of being prevented front attending his own place of worship, a Dissenting chapel, but was compelled to listen to the spiritual in- structions of a clergyman of the Established Church, from the doctrines of which be dissented.

Mr. Pi.uaterae said, that in Kent the Poor-law had been productive of the most essential benefit— Under it a more independent feeling was rising up in the minds of the labour- ing classes, and timeir morals were much improved. Wherever unions of pa- rishes had been established, there had invariably been appointed a chaplain; and in general the improvement was such as could not fail to be satisfactory to every man who wished, as he did, for the welfare, prosperity, and comfort of the lower classes.

The House divided. For the motion, 46; against it, 82; majority against Mr. Walter's motion, 36.

3. CI:STOMS DUTIES.

The House, on Monday, went into Committee on the Customs Duties Bill ; and Mr. POULETT THOMSON stated the reduction of the duties on several articles, which the flourishing condition of the empire enabled him to propose. He moved that the duty on black pepper be reduced from Is. to (id. per pound; on pimento, from 5d. to 3d. ; on cloves and mace, from 9d. to 6d.; on castor oil (which was largely used in manu- factures as a substitute for olive or palm oil) from Is. Gd. a pound to Is. 3d. a hundredweight ; on silver plate entered at the Customhouse by parties for their own use, from 5s. 6(1. to 2s. 6d. an ounce, and on gold from 3/. 16s. to IL an ounce ; on woollen rags, from 15 per cent. to a merely nominal duty; and on verdigris, from Is. to 6d. per pound. He would also propose that maps and charts should pay the same duty as prints, Id. each and on African teak-wood and wax he also wished that the duty might be merely nominal. Mr. Thom- son then stated:to the House, what had hitherto been the effect on the revenue and commerce of the country of the reduction of duty on im- ported articles, in 1832, 1833, and 1834—

He would not allude to articles of importance, but referred to those which were classed as producing a small amount of duty. By the reduction of the duties on articles of this description, they would have been justified in esti- mating that there would be a loss to the revenue of the amount of 411,0001. That was taking it for granted that the quantity of the article imported would be the same in amount after the reduction of the duty as it was before ; it was also assuming that the consumption did not increase. The real loss of revenue from the duties on these articles was, last year, 240,000/.; so that the loss was little more than 60 per cent., instead of being a total loss, as might fairly have been anticipated. He would take the article nuts, the duty on which had been reduced, in 1832, from two shillings to one shilling a pound. The estimated loss was 22,5001., but the real loss was not more than 380/. Again, the duty ora cocoa was reduced from 6d. to 2d. a pound. The estimated loss was 10,000/4

but the net loia was only 5000/. Again, on the article madder and madder. roots the eatimated loss was 14,5001., while the net loss was only 7300/. Tak- ing the article currants, the duty on which had been so recently reduced, it would appear, that although the duty given up wee 200,0001., the loss was only 130,0001. Although the duty had only been reduced two years, the net foss vras little more than two-thirds of the estimated loss of 200,0001. He mentioned these cases to show what had been done, and what might be done by a judicious reduction of taxation on articlea apparently producing a small amount of revenue ; and he trusted by alluding to these cases he should be able to induce the House to persist in pursuing the course that bad been followed with an much advantage. ( Cheers.) Dr. BOWRING congratulated the House on the progress of commer- cial reform. The policy of the Board of Trade received encourage- ment from what was passing in various parts of the world, as well as in England. The United States offered a oplendid example of the advance and the success of a liberal policy in matters of trade. He held in his hand the last commercial returns: they exhibited since the lowering of the tariff an increase of exports to the amount of thirty millions of dollars, and of imports to the extent of fifty =Minns. He had to propose sundry modifications, which he hoped would be sanctioned by the right honourable gentleman. They ptincipally regarded articles from France, in which he might be supposed to feel a particular inte- rest ; and he would take occasion to state, in answer to those who had so fre- quently repeated that no changes had been obtained in France, that the exports of our manufactures, which for many years before 1830 had not reached to half a million sterling, were in the last year a million and a half, or an increase of 200 per cent. He proposed that the duty on verdigris should be reduced from the sixpence proposed by the right honourable gentleman, to threepence per pound. This was 25 per cent. on an article wanted in our manufactures, and which we had failed in all our attempts successfully to manufacture in Eugland. On duties even so heavy as seriously to interfere with the consumption, Ger- many imported seven times, Russia four times, America twice as much as we. He wished also to reduce the duty on French plums to 7s. per cwt. It was very difficult to distinguish .between plums and prunes, and the distinction of the duty was nut worth preserving. The lowering the rates on prunes had ready increased the demand ; and it was desirable that the experiment should be carried further. Besides, the two qualities were often mixed in the same packages, without any intention to deceive,—as the lower qualities of plums and the higher qualities of prunes were nearly of the same value. He would also propose a reduction of duty on foreign books. Mete was no coun- try that levied so heavy a contribution on literature as we; and he hoped the duty might be reduced to 20s. per hundredweight. In all these suggestions, it was his wish to arrive nearer and nearer to a state of things where the only articles marked out for duties would be few, and those the most important. Fifteen or twenty of the leading articles would supply all our fiscal wants, and the rest might be admitti.d duty.free. This would, in its results, lessen the cost of collection and benefit the revenue.

Mr. EWART wished the duty on Neapolitan olive oil to be reduced ; and Mr. HUTT that the duty on plums should be lowered to 7s. a hun- dred weight. A MEMBEIt asked why the duty on chicory had been increased ? Mr. THOMSON replied, that it was in order to prevent a fraudulent mixture of it with coffee. He opposed all the motions to effect other reductions of duty than those he had made arrangements for ; and the bill was reported without alteration.

4. BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL.

The Duke of RICHMOND. on Thursday, moved the Peers to receive the report of the Brighton Railroad Committee. He considered that the supporters of Mr. Stephenson's Line had received hurdineasure. By an ex post facto regulation of both Houses of Parliament, while the bill fur Stephenson's Line was under discussion, three or tem con- tending lines bad been suffered to come into competition with it. The bill had been approved of by a Committee of the House of Commons, after an examination of fifty days ; and their Lordships, after hearing witnesses for eighteen days, have got rid of the bill without giving any opinion on its merits. l'hey refused to comply with the Standieg Order of their own House, and to report their opinion on the bill ; but postponed the consideration of it till next session, thereby shirking the question. Could they suppose that people of capital would expend 100,000/. on a project. if, after such an outlay, they were to be told by the House of Lords, "We can't make up our minds on the subject of your bill?" He did not impute personal motives to any man ; and would not say that those who had not heard the evidence, but had wily read it, were incompetent to give a just vote on a measure. Neither would lie say any thing of canvassing. But he warned their Lordships against doing any thing to injure the high character hitherto maintained by their Com- mittees; for such conduct would do more than any thing else to shake the existence of their Lordships' House.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND maintained that the Committee was free from reproach. No two Peers could say that Stephenson's Line was the best. It should be remembered, that they bad a petition not only from Brighton, nine. tenths of whose inhabitants were opposed to the bill, but also from the City of London against it. As to canvassing, be knew nothing of it, and never countenanced such a proceeding.

Lord ABINGDON approved of the decision of the Committee.

Lord GLENGALL said, every member of the Committee who spoke on the subject thought Stephenson's Line the best.

Lord CLANR1CARDE said, it was the best made out.

The Duke of Beaueoar was in favour of Stephenson's Line, but denied that any thing unparliaraentary had been done by the Com- mittee.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE made a few observations, which were inaudible; but which called up the Duke of RICHMOND. He denied that he had any interest in Ste- phenson's Line ; and declared that the Committee had taken an unwar- rantable liberty in refusing to comply with a Standing Order of the House. This was likely to be a very unpopular proceeding ; and be dared to say, that even the Duke of' Cumberland was not blind to the advantages of popularity. He moved that the bill be recommitted.

The Duke of CUMBERLAND said, that if popularity were to be gained by the act of walking to the window, lie would not go there.

Lord HOLLAND asked where the bill was ?

The Duke of RICHMOND replied—" On the table."

The Duke of BeecLEccit repelled the charge against the Committee that they had taken " an unwarrantable liberty." He thought it ex- tremely inexpedient that Committees should be liable to be called

upon to lefend their conduct in the House whenever they disagreed with their Chairman, and to go over their labours again.

The Earl of WESTMORELAND thought that the country had a right to know the opinion of the Committee on an undertaking on which so much time and money had been laid out.

Lord HOLLAND and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE supported the mo- tion for recommitting the bill. Lord SALISBURY opposed it.

The Duke of RICHMOND was satisfied (the illustrious Duke having said so) that the Duke of Cumberland had not communicated to any one his intention of making the motion for the postponement of the bill. The impression on his mind was produced by the fact that circu- lars were sent about stating that there would be a division on a motioa of that kind : from that he naturally concluded that the Duke had com- municated his intention to others.

The House divided ; and rejected the Duke of Richmond's motion,.

by 44 to 42. So the bill is lost. • MISCEI.LANEOUS MATTERS.

PRIVATE Bins. On Monday, the Peers agreed, on the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, to the following resolution- " That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he wi3 be pleased to appoint persons of competent authority to consider and report on the best lines for forming railroad communications th.oughout Ireland, pointing out the comparative advantages and facilities afforded for such communications with the principal places in that country, for the information of individuals willing to embark in joint-stock companies for the purpose of carrying such projects into effect ; and that such assistance with respect to the lines that ought to be adopted shall be given by the Board of Works as his Majesty may deem expedient."

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. POULETT Titomsote moved a series of resolutions in conformity with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Railways. The resolutions occupy two closely- printed columns of the Times, but their leading points are the follow- ing. It is proposed to appoint, at the commencement of every session, a Committee of 42 Members, and that all private bills should be re- ferred to the Sub- Committees of this Committee ; the Standing Orders Committee to be limited to 15 Members ; the time for giving notice of bills and depositing plans to be changed from the 30th of November to the 1st of March, the alteration not to come into force until the session after next ; plans and sections to be deposited with parish-clerks in England, parish-schoolmasters in Scotland, and postmasters in Ireland. The resolutions contain a vast number of minute directions, for the guidance of parties applying for private bills.

After a brief debate, the resolutions were all agreed to.

THE JEWISII DISABILITIES Btu. was read a second time, on Wednes- day, by a vote of 39 to 22, on the motion of Mr. SPRING RICE ; after strong opposition from Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Colonel SIBTIIORPE, Mr. Foitsmt, Mr. A. TREVOR, Mr. FINCII, Mr. HARDY, and Mr. PLUMPTRE ; Mr. BENETT, Mr. BUNDLE, and Mr. BROTHERTON, Cor- dially supporting the motion.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. The bill to prevent bribery at elections went through the Committee, on Wednesday ; notwithstanding very persevering opposition from Colonel SIIITHORPE, Mr. Foitnes, and Mr. A. Tusvon, who divided the Committee five times against various clauses in the bill.

Pureat.rries BILL. On Thursday, the Committee on this bill was put off to Tuesday next.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL, on Thurs- day, moved the further consideration of the report on this bill ; and took the opportunity to mention the names of the following gentlemen who would compose the Court of Revision,—the Right Honourable Thomas Erskine, Chief of the Court, but with the same amount of salary as the rest of the Revising Barristers; Mr. Fraser, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Long, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Alalthy, Mr. Prized, Mr. West, Mr. O'Grady, Mr. Reynell, and Mr. Alexander.

Mr. Hum objected to give Mr. Erskine another 1,000/. in addition to the 3,000/. lie had so long derived from an almost sinecure place. Sir JOHN CAMPBELL defended the appointment of Mr. Erskine. After bolding a high judicial situation for many years, it would be " beneath his honour and dignity" to accept another post without some honorarium.

The clause was agreed to, with the understanding that another dis- cussion is to take place with regard to Mr. Erskine's salary. The re- port was then received.

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF PEERS. Mr. O'CONNELL having placed a motion on this subject on the Vote-paper for " early next session," Mr. ARTHUR TREVOR, on Tuesday, gave notice that he should, on the Thursday following, move to expunge it from the paper.

SLAVERY IN TEXAS. Mr. BARLOW HOY last night moved an ad- dress to the King, the object of which was to secure for Mexico the assist- ance of this country against the United States, especially on the gro

that the 1,100,000/. now annually expended by England for the suppres- sion of the slave-trade and slavery would be thrown away, if Texas, a. slave state, with every facility for carrying on the trade, were added to the Union. Mr. Wallis seconded the motion. The possession of Texas, he said, would enable the American privateers to cut up the British trade to Mexico. It would be impolitic to allow the United States to make an addition to her territory, which would eventually add' nine new slave-holding states, and eighteen votes to the slave party in Congress. Lord PALMERSTON opposed the motion in a speech of great length, in which he replied to the arguments of Mr. Hoy and Mr. Ward; and the motion was ultimately withdrawn.

WAR IN SPAIN. Mr. MACLEAN last night called the attention of the House to the progress of the civil war in Spain. He asked for a return of the killed and wounded in Lord John Hay's squadron,. and an explanation of General Evans's order threatening British subjects fighting for Don Carlos with death. Lord PALMERSTON defended the policy of the Government with regard to Spain ; and said that if General Evans's order were read carefully, it would be seen that it merely amounted to a prohibition of communication between the picquets of his army and the English soldiers in the service of Carlo?. He himself felt great confidence that the cause of the Queen of Spain

must eventually prosper. Mr. POULTER, Dr. BOWRING,. and Mr. GROVE PRICE, addressed the:House ; but there was no question before It, go the conversation led to no vote.

MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES. In a Committee of Supply, last i night, the House voted about 170,000/. n various sums.

THE TROUTBECK CASE. The Speaker took the chair at twelve o'clock on Thursday, the day appointed for the adjourned debate on the Troutbeck petition. For half an hour there was " no House;" and the Speaker ordered one Member, who was about to leave the House, to return to his seat ; which he did amidst the laughter of the few who were present. At length forty Members were assembled ; but as soon as the discussion began, many left the House ; and during the greater part of the discussion only about twelve Members were present. Sir Join.; CAMPBELL opposed the claims, in a very elaborate speech ; in which he went through the statements in the Troutbeck petition, maintaining that they were unfounded. He said that the case was riot one between the Crown and an individual, but that there were con- tending claimants for the money. Mr. SPRING RICE said, that the money was not spent, but would be paid to the parties who made out their claim to it. Mr. WARBURTON replied ; and the motion for a Committee was rejected, without a division.

BOROUGH OF STAFFORD. On the motion of Mr. DIVETT, on Wed. nesday, the issue of the writ for Stafford was again postponed for ten days. In the House of Peers, on Thursday, the Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved that the bill for disfranchising the old burgesses of Stafford be read a second time. It was distinctly proved, that out of 850 of those burgesses, 700 had been bribed.

The Earl of DEvosr was not surprised that Lord Clanricarde moved the second reading before going through the evidence, because the evi-

dence proved that the bill was not founded in justice. It punished poor men for taking bribes, and did not inflict any penalty against well- 'mown persons proved to have been guilty of corruption. The Duke of WELLINGTON opposed the motion. It disfranchised the old burgesses, some of whom had not been bribed ; and spated the new burgesses under the Municipal Act, some of whom had been bribed.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE was opposed to disfranchising persons not proved to have bribed, but wished all who had been corrupted to be prevented from voting. Lord CLANRICARDE said, that in Committee a clause might be in- serted excluding the 150 who had not been bribed from the operation of the bill.

Lord LYNDHURST remarked, that the chief bribers at Stafford had been Whigs, not Tories; among the latter there was no disposition to protect bribery. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said nothingabout Whigs or Tories. There had been both Whig and Tory boroughmongers ; but, unfortu- nately for the country, there had been mote of the latter. The LORD CHANCELT.OR and Lord STRAFFORD supported the bill. It was opposed by the Marquis of SALISBURY and Lord FAL- MOUTH; and rejected, by 38 te 22. •

Pool.e CORPORATION BILL. The Duke of RICHMOND moved the second reading of this bill on Tuesday. Lord REDESDAI.E said, the real motive for bringing forward this bill was the election of so many Tories into the Poole Corporation, which grilled the Whig- Radicals. He moved that the bill be read a third time that day six months. Lord LYNDHURST and Lord WHARNCLIFFE refused to pass such a measure without hearing evidence on oath at the bar of the House of Lords, and would support the amendment. Lord STRAFFoRD supported the bill. But the amendment was carried without a division ; b0 the bill is lost.

CHARITABLE TRUSTEES BILL. Lord Chancellor CorrENuaat moved the second reading of this bill on Thursday. The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that the House stood at that moment on the clause they had inserted in the Municipal Act Amend- ment Bill, continuing the Trusteeship of Charities for another year in the bands of the present Trustees. That was the present arrangement. As to the bill before them, he never would consent to give the pa- tronage of the charities to either party in the Corporation ; and, in order to give Lord Brougham an opportunity of proposing his plan for the management of charitable funds, he would move that the bill be read a second time that day six months. Lord MELBOURNE observed, that the bill provided for the adminis- tration of corporate charities only until Parliament should o:herwise direct ; therefore it did not interfere with any future arrangement. He ;sloped the bill would receive the sanction of the House.

Lord LYNDHURST said, that nothing could be more mischievous than the provisions of the bill— The device of allowing no person to vote for more than one. half the Trustees, nub' in no respect lessen the mischief of the bill; and the other device of mak- ing the Mayor the chairman, when no other chairman was chosen, was equally illusory ; for, as in the great number of cases, the Mayor was now Ultra-Li- beral, this device would only have the effect of throwing the management of the trusts into the hands of the Ultra-Liberal party in each borough. Another objection to the bill was, that it would inevitably put the control over trusts for ecclesiastical purposes, of which there was a great many, into the hands of Dissenters; and lie put it to the House, whether the Dissenting body were the most proper persons to administer funds intended for the benefit of the Esta- blished Church ?

After a few words from Lord LANSDOWNE and the LORD CHAN- CELLOR, in defence of the measure, their Lordships divided : for the second reading, 22; against it, 39; majority, 17. The bill is conse- quently lost.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES BILL. The Marquis of CLAN- R!cARDE then moved that this bill be read a second time. The Arch- bishop of ARMAGH moved that it be read a second time that day six months. Lord HOLLAND and Lord PLUNKET supported the bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON opposed it, as a partial measure. He should be willing to give his best consideration next session to a bill for giving publicity to marriages that would he applicable to all Ireland. On a division, the bill was rejected, by 39 to 19. SCOTCH SMALL DEBTS BILL. Last night, the Peers, on the motion of the Marquis of BUTE, supported by Lord HADDINGTON, and op- posed by Lord COTTENHAM, refused to read this bill a second time. It is consequently lost.

COUNTY ELECTIONS BILL. Lord MELBOURNE moved the second reading of this bill last night. Lord WHARNCLIFFE disapproved of the limitation of the polling to one day ; which would give a great advan- tage to voters in towns over agricultural voters, and get rid of the Chattdos ,50/. clause in the Reform Act by a side-wind. He moved to read the bill a second time that day three months. The amendment was supported by the Marquis of SALISBURY and Lord FALMOUTH; opposed by Lord HATHERTON and the Duke of RICHMOND; and with- drawn by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, to allow the bill to go into Committee. The bill was then read a second time.

THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL went through a Committee of the Lords on Monday. Two amendments proposed by the Bishop of EXETER,—the first to prevent the Commissioners from becoming a per- petual corporation, and the second to prevent the Commissioners from alienating the income of any Bishopric except that of Durham,— were rejected by large majorities. The report was brought up on Thursday. The Archbishop Of CANTERBURY moved to amend the clause which rendered it necessary for a Welsh Bishop to understand the Welsh language. He said, the duty of' a Bishop was not to act as the shepherd of a flock, but as the superintendent of the pastors ; and as every clergyman understood the English language, the clause would limit the exercise of the prero- gative unnecessarily. The words objected to by the Archbishop were struck out of the clause ; and the report was agreed to. Lust night, the bill was read a third, time and passed ; the Duke of CUMBERLAND arid the Bishop of HEREFORD protesting against it, as injurious to the Church ; the Duke of' WELLINGTON approving of it SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL. On Tuesday, Lord MELBOURNE, at the suggestion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, postponed the further consideration of this bill to the next session.

MARRIAGE BILL. On Monday, the Peers struck out of this bill the declaration introduced by the Bishop of Exeter, by a majority of 72 to 29; and the report was received. On Thursday, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

ENGLISH TITHES. The Tithe Commutation Bill, as amended by the Lords, was agreed to by the Commons on Monday, with some unimportant alterations. Last night, the Peers concurred in these alterations. So the bill has finally received the assent of both Houses.